Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness
keithj43 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 17 10:42:51 EST 2003
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hq0qvb0.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca>...
> On 15 Dec 2003 10:41:14 -0800, keith wrote:
> >If it violated the laws of physics. Of course, that could just mean
> >that we were wrong about the laws of physics; contradicting the way we
> >*thought* things were doesn't make something supernatural. So if your
> >point was that whatever God might do could be seen as a natural
> >event--even if he raised someone from the dead--I suppose I wouldn't
> Not could be seen as a natural event - _would_ be seen as a natural event.
> And as you point out, just because it appears to contradict what we think we
> know about the natural world doesn't mean it's not natural. The natural
> cannot contain the supernatural.
I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "experiencing something *as*
a natural event" as opposed to experiencing it as a supernatural
event. Supernatural or natural is just a statement about the ultimate
cause of the event, but the experience is just the experience. I could
see a person rise from the dead after hearing jesus tell the person to
rise. I could feel the overpowering sensation of being guided by God
to repent of my sin. The experience is just the experience.
Supernatural or natural seems to me to just be a sort of explanation
*for* the experience.
> The intersection between the natural and the
> supernatural would be experienced as natural by natural beings. Read Abbot's
> "Flatland" for an analogy. It may be possible (as in Flatland) to apprehend
> that something is non-natural, but that is not the same as experiencing the
> non-natural, and any arguments based on such an apprehension would be
> unprovable. In any case, the supernatural can be spoken of via analogy and
> metaphor, not directly. Your post about the impossibility of experiencing the
> world as a tree might experience it makes the same point. IOW, we can say
> what we like about the supernatural, or about "god" - but nothing we say can
> be proven one way ot the other. IIRC, that was Kierkegaard's point when he
> thought about Pascal's wager existentially rather than as a logic game.
More information about the Neur-sci